Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason

[Gibsense]

That is nonsensical !

From a person who labels "Wrong" to a statement summarising Cosmologists' best efforts to date, I guess you are a teenager anxious to engage. That's great. As for the latest comment 'nonsensical' I can see that it looks difficult to swallow and I should have used more effort to explain why, as clearly, you are not stupid just overconfident.

 

[Thermoman]

From a person who labels "Wrong" to a statement summarising Cosmologists' best efforts to date, I guess you are a teenager anxious to engage. That's great. As for the latest comment 'nonsensical' I can see that it looks difficult to swallow and I should have used more effort to explain why, as clearly, you are not stupid just overconfident.

Over confident , nerr , genius yes , anti gravity yes , I don't need you !

 

[Thermoman]

[/url][/IMG] I looked at the diagrams for Lemaitre's ideas and modified the labels. All similar diagrams have time as some mysterious arrow which I have changed to Imaginary time. Also, the space within the circles normally represents nothing, but in the chart, it is the expansion driven by our 'ordinary' time. Each ellipse represents a hypersphere (that is 3 dimensions dropped to leave just a circle - the circumference is the hypersphere)
NB no acceleration of expansion is shown (I think it could be misleadingly due to time dilation)

A stretch too far maybe but consistent with my other posts regarding a Quantum Landscape the surface of the expanding cylinder might be considered as the 'Quantum Landscape' modified as the universe passes in Imaginary Time.

Present → Travel Time → Present

1.s=1.s → Travel Time → 1.s=1.s

12am → Travel Time → 12am

1am →arrived time → 1am

You are all absolutely bonkers !

 

[Gibsense]

You are all absolutely bonkers !

possibly.
But what on earth is this-

"Present → Travel Time → Present

1.s=1.s → Travel Time → 1.s=1.s

12am → Travel Time → 12am

1am →arrived time → 1am"

Please explain this apparent idiocy you outlined above

 

[sabrom]

Ockham's Razer
Non-Doppler red shift caused by electron acceleration by light passing through free hydrogen interstellar gas (Soft Bremsstrahlung). Paul Marmet, A New Non-Doppler Redshift, 1988.

 

[Jzz]

It is well known that practically the only fool-proof method to measure distances at the cosmological level is direct spectral analysis of the object in order to determine its redshift. Unfortunately, the study that states with a 98% certainty that the Universe is expanding does not have this capability, instead a method called large imaging survey is used. The issue is “that large imaging surveys, such as DES, tend to not have spectroscopic capabilities, as the method to obtain spectroscopic information makes it difficult to gather the spectra of many sources at once. Due to this limitation, the majority of our galaxy data is obtained in “photometric” form, which collects data on the intensity and distribution of light with different color filters. This method can be more easily used for large amounts of galaxies, yet cannot give us the precise spectrum, which means we cannot easily get the redshifts from photometry.”

That is the long and short of it. I think it will be agreed that measuring the red-shift from clusters of galaxies and interpolating that information to indicate that the Universe is expanding with a 98% certainty is not very dependable. What is the justification for such a study. It is already known that a single observation of a type 1a supernova occurs every 500 years.

But then again a science that claims to be able to measure audio signals that are one ten thousandth the width of a proton can measure anything they set their minds to.

 

[Zaphod the Elder]

Yes. This was, IIRC, an element within de Sitter's modeling in 1917. The view was that the wavelengths would become longer due to time dilation of the atom emitting the photon, thus making it more red than what his observed on Earth.

Others, such as Lanczos, Weyl, Lemaitre, Roberson, and Tolman, also worked within the framework of de Sitter's model. The main competitor was Einstein's own cosmological model.

Einstein knew his model was only favorable in math terms, not in physics terms. His model, as he knew, had no explanation for the redshifts observed by Slipher (1912 and later).

De Sitter's model did offer an explanation for redshift observations, but his model had no matter in the universe. That's a problem.

When Edington showed de Sitter the model from Lemaitre (spacetime expansion of a dynamic universe, not a static one), he immediately recognized its brilliance. By 1931, Einstein quickly corrected his harsh criticism of Lemaitre's model and accepted it.

If you study de Sitter's model, you might find something to help your vision of cosmology.

Yes, I think that would be a very good use of your time, going forward. Do it.